Darwin's Illusion

[We Never Know]

Are they using it colloquially, or in a technical context?

I provided the quote and the link to the quote.

"Are they using it colloquially, or in a technical context?"

That's for you to decide.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I provided the quote and the link to the quote.

"Are they using it colloquially, or in a technical context?"

That's for you to decide.

It was explained to you more than once that it was not being used in a technical context. In fact as soon as you made your error it was explained.

 

[We Never Know]

It was explained to you more than once that it was not being used in a technical context. In fact as soon as you made your error it was explained.

"It was explained to you more than once that it was not being used in a technical context."

Provide the posts or STFU!
Its that simple.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"It was explained to you more than once that it was not being used in a technical context."

Provide the posts or STFU!
Its that simple.

LOL! Nope. Rude demands never need to be honored.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

LOL! Nope. Rude demands never need to be honored.

Prove that or it is just a belief.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Prove that or it is just a belief.

It may be just a belief, but thanks for the laugh.

But it is a slow night and the posts were not that far back. This link will take you to my response to him where I did exactly what I said that I did:

Darwin's Illusion

 

[We Never Know]

LOL! Nope. Rude demands never need to be honored.

Again just as expected.

 

[We Never Know]

It may be just a belief, but thanks for the laugh.

But it is a slow night and the posts were not that far back. This link will take you to my response to him where I did exactly what I said that I did:

Darwin's Illusion

You just suported my post, thanks. When I said prove it, I was asking for evidence.

Just because..

"The most likely source for life on our planet appears to be abiogenesis"

Then prove it and remember...

And you just totally disqualified yourself from the debate. In the sciences there is only evidence. When someone says "prove it" it is a demand for evidence.

I can give you evidence, but you have demonstrated that you lack the education to even begin to judge.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You just suported my post, thanks. When I said prove it, I was asking for evidence.

No, I refuted your post. I had offered to provide evidence earlier and your ran away from that offer. You only had to show that you had a minimal amount of knowledge of the topic.

 

[We Never Know]

No, I refuted your post. I had offered to provide evidence earlier and your ran away from that offer. You only had to show that you had a minimal amount of knowledge of the topic.

This must be your theme song

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can provide evidence for it. But unfortunately the people that I am debating with do not seem to understand the concept.

Here is a test that you should be able to pass. What is the first example of scientific evidence for abiogenesis?

Here was the offer to support my claim with evidence. It came even earlier.

How did you forget that? Were you made because you could not answer a simple question? If you could not answer that question it would almost certainly mean that you do not understand the concept of evidence and I would be wasting time if I provided you with any evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This must be your theme song

And I just supported my prior claim. What is up with the massive projection?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It may be just a belief, but thanks for the laugh.

But it is a slow night and the posts were not that far back. This link will take you to my response to him where I did exactly what I said that I did:

Darwin's Illusion

Well. I was taught it differently. So we are doing different cultures for how to do science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well. I was taught it differently. So we are doing different cultures for how to do science.

Possibly. How were you taught?

EDIT: And by whom! For example a fundamentalist Christian College is apt to have a very different definition of "science" than a secular one would have here.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Possibly. How were you taught?

By online skeptics like you. Never use proof, unless you are doing strict logic and/or math. Use evidence and if need be explain how science is methodological naturalism and what that means.
And in end how there is no evidence that the world is natural.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By online skeptics like you. Never use proof, unless you are doing strict logic and/or math. Use evidence and if need be explain how science is methodological naturalism and what that means.
And in end how there is no evidence that the world is natural.

You are not following the discussion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are not following the discussion.

Well, you use in effect using a set of assumptions about biological evolution, which are connected to a set of assumptions about what the world is. But there are other set of assumptions than yours.

 

[Polymath257]

Universely, absolutely. But we weren't discussing universely. And yet some will still say it was created.

Just to followup, I consider it incredibly unlikely that life was brought to Earth on a meteor from outside of our solar system.

Think of it like this. Life would have to get going on some other planet (it could not have originated on the meteor itself).

Then, it would have had to survive whatever event made the meteor from the planet ( a huge explosion of some sort).

Then, it would have had to survive for at least tens of thousands of years (and that is only for the closest stars, more likely millions of years) in space at 2.7 degrees Kelvin. This would have to be some sort of stasis.

Then it would have actually had to hit another planet (the Earth). Given the immensity of space, this is incredibly unlikely for something outside of our solar system.

Then it would have had to survive reentry into whatever atmosphere the Earth had at the time. The high temperatures of re-rentry would be an issue for something originally at 2.7K.

Then it would have had to find the environment on Earth conducive to re-emerging from stasis and surviving. In other words, the chemistry of Earth would have to match the chemistry of the organism.

Now, for travel from *within* our solar system, it is possible that the temperature doesn't get quite down to 2.7K and the likelihood of actually hitting Earth goes way, way up. But then you have the issue of abiogenesis on one of the known planets.

This should be compared to the fact that we *know* that life was present on Earth very quickly after it cooled enough to allow for liquid water, that the basic materials were here and that there were conditions that allowed for increasing complexity.

Also, be careful of the difference between *life* making such a journey and the basic chemicals of life doing so. Again, it is far more likely within the solar system, though.

So, based on everything we know, it is much, much more likely that life started here (Earth or, potentially Mars or Jupiter or one of the Jovian moons) that that it came from another star. And given what we know about the other planets in our system, Earth is, by far, the most likely place here.

 

[cladking]

Then it would have had to survive reentry into whatever atmosphere the Earth had at the time. The high temperatures of re-rentry would be an issue for something originally at 2.7K.

Something extremely light would not heat up much.

Tidal effects on debris passing near to heavy bodies could tear up and separate debris.

 

[Polymath257]

Something extremely light would not heat up much.

Not true. It would still have to get rid of whatever kinetic energy it has, which would be proportional to mass, meaning the heating would be similar.

More likely to allow for survival would be a larger fragment where the heat might now conduct to the interior before hitting the Earth.

Of course then there would be the issue of the life getting out of the rock in time.

Tidal effects on debris passing near to heavy bodies could tear up and separate debris.

Only on something planet sized. Which is very unlikely.

Overall, transfer of life via meteor is very unlikely from outside of our solar system.